Tom Burrell

Liberty and Common Consent

RSS Fox Headlines

Recent Comments

    Magna Carta and Due Process of Law

    Magna Carta and Due Process of Law: The Road to American Judicial Activism

    Buy paperback and kindle e-book!

    Recent Works

    Privileges and Immunities and the Journey from the Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution: Courts on National Citizenship, Substance, and Antidiscrimination, 35 Whittier L. Rev. ---- (2014), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2374985

    Facebook Posts

    The electoral college may soon resemble the Supreme Court--exercising runaway reasonableness review based on arbitrary and subjective opinion, to the detriment of the people. ... See MoreSee Less

    View on Facebook
    August 2017
    M T W T F S S
    « Jul    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
    • In a pleading for the Dartmouth College v. Woodward case, Daniel Webster commented that New Hampshire’s Law of the Land Clause meant:

      By the law of the land, is most clearly intended, the general law; a law, which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.  The meaning is, that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities, under the protection of the general rules which govern society.  Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment, is not, therefore, to be considered the law of the land.  If this were so, acts of attainder, bills of pains and penalties, acts of confiscation, acts reversing judgments, and acts directly transferring one man’s estate to another, legislative judgments, decrees and forfeitures, in all possible forms, would be  the law of the land.  Such a strange construction would render constitutional provisions, of the highest importance, completely inoperative and void.  It would tend directly to establish the union of all powers in the legislature.  There would be no general permanent law for courts to administer, or for men to live under.  The administration of justice would be an empty form, an idle ceremony.  Judges would sit to execute legislative judgments and decrees; not to declare the law, or to administer the justice of the country.

      17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 581–82.   

      In Magna Carta and Due Process of Law, I discuss “law of the land,” the Due Process Clause, and Webster’s influence on judicial development in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

      Webster bootstrapped “law of the land” with a broader, unknown meaning by giving it an independent source of constitutional oversight reach.  In so doing, Webster violently opened the door to an umbrella construction including principles of fairness and other generalities.  His argument reads:  laws that run afoul of constitutional commands such as prohibiting acts of attainder are not law of the land.  Therefore, “law of the land” provides not for the rule of law but for a substantive review of the quality and character of legislation in order for that law to be law of the land.  Further, substantive review included fairness review among other generalities.  Under this reading, law of the land was an undefined variable inclusive of the Constitution as well as general principles of fairness and justice.

      Burrell, Magna Carta and Due Process of Law, 204-05.

      Buy now

      Preview available on Google Books

       

      Comments Off on What is substantive due process?
    • I enjoy gun rights and the right to bear arms.  But I will not put my faith in the Supreme Court to protect that right.  I know what the Supreme Court does to “rights” including those in the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution.  For the last seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has been an ideology center driving progressive values in the name of the Constitution.  Notwithstanding recent outlier opinions, Heller and McDonald, individual gun ownership is not one of those progressive values protected by the Court’s typical jurisprudence.

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      With the loss of Justice Scalia, the pillar of the Court’s conservative wing, how long will it be before the Supreme Court reevaluates the Second Amendment as a protection for the individual’s right to bear arms?  The modern Supreme Court has shown no restraint from manipulating constitutional language that had never been used, and was never intended to be used, in a given manner to invent a new “constitutional” doctrine—thereby invalidating dozens of state laws and disenfranchising the American people in the process.

      The Court’s interpretation of “Due Process of Law,” for example, extends far beyond a mechanism to protect the rule of law from arbitrary executive or judicial action.  Courts have extended it to invalidate legislation itself.  Courts invented “substantive due process,” which allows the judge to determine whether the law is valid based upon his or her subjective perception of whether the enacted law is fair, reasonable, or socially just.

      Under the Court’s control, the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Equal Protection of the Law” became “protection of equal laws”—which is the not-so-slight difference between applying the law fairly and fully on the one hand and a substantive equality provision for the judge (not the legislators) to subjectively determine whether the law is fair, reasonable, and bestows equal dignity and respect to all divisions of society on the other hand.  If the law does not meet with the judge’s approval, it is unconstitutional.  The constitutional right to privacy and right to abortion were invented without any constitutional basis or supporting text.

      The drive against guns will work its way into judicial ideology to present new challenges to individual gun ownership.   Recent events illustrate the anti-gun agenda.  A radical Muslim enters a high-attendee event and executes individuals in the name of Islam.  The response by a certain segment of society is to identify the act not with terrorism but with “gun violence.”  The main stream media: “we have a gun problem in America.”  An individual associating with Black Lives Matter ambush-kills five cops in Dallas and certain segments of society seem to believe that the gun he used committed the crime on its own, the gun made him do it.  It was all about the gun used.  There’s no further look into the hate-filled ideology within those movements.

      When this anti-gun ideology enters the courts, the Supreme Court will overhaul the historic meaning of the individual’s right to bear arms.  The Court will bury the positive text of “people keep and bear arms” with militia membership and deprive the Amendment from protecting individuals’ right to bear arms.  This reading will prevent individuals living in localities like Chicago, DC, and New York, and other cities with stringent gun control tendencies, from protection.

      With a militia-reading of the Second Amendment, gun owners will no doubt react with the concern “what about self-defense.”  The courts will say that the Amendment has nothing to do with self-defense.  Progressive advocacy groups will likely retort with statistics that individual gun ownership does not correlate with self-defense.  “In fact more individuals and home owners are likely to be harmed by their guns than they are to use those guns in self-defense.”   The anti-gun craze may even persuade the Court to find a negative or prohibition of an individual’s gun rights in the Second Amendment.  The negative would be something along the lines of because the right to bear arms is limited to militias and because individual gun ownership is unsafe, the modern Second Amendment prevents the federal government and each and every state from allowing its citizens to own guns.  The Court’s new interpretation of the Second Amendment would mean that only military and government officials are permitted to own guns.  State and local laws permitting individuals and homeowners from owning guns are unconstitutional.

      The above-described path is perfectly consistent with modern Supreme Court judicial activism.  Rights are invented and destroyed at the Court’s outcome-driven whim.  The Court has radically redefined our federal and state governments under interpretations of the incorporated First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment.  I don’t mean questionable or reasonable interpretations; I mean living, breathing, we-own-the-country interpretations.  Many judicially created rights should have been evaluated, adopted, or discarded through Article V or at least through legislative means.  But our society has seemingly accepted the notion to “let the courts sort it out.”

      So beware of putting your faith in the Second Amendment.  The likelihood of the Supreme Court continuing to protect the individual right to bear arms is slim, in my humble opinion.  In fact, it may come down to the 2016 election.  Several justices are 80ish.  Both Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions.  If the Democrats win the election, there will probably be several new justices nominated and appointed to the Court.  One of the major goals of the progressives will be neutralizing the Second Amendment from blocking gun control laws.

      Charles: “What would happen if guns were banned in America?”
      Lucy: “Statistics show that most violence is committed by guns.  Banning guns will end gun violence.”
      Charles: “With a ban, the law-abiding would not have guns and the criminals, thugs, and terrorists would.”
      Lucy: “No, the ban would apply to all, equally.”
      Charles:  “But terrorism and murder are against the law now.  Don’t you think that the criminal, thug, and terrorist will violate the ban just as they violate every other moral or legal command?  Further, the law-abiding will comply with the ban.  Thus, you’ve disarmed the good guys and declared open-season on them.”
      Lucy: “I hadn’t thought about that…but guns are bad.  Wouldn’t we all be better off if there were fewer guns?  Most gun violence is probably committed by guns that were purchased legally. Banning guns is good.  There will be less gun violence.  I don’t think police should be able to carry guns.”
      Charles:  “Did the ‘War on Drugs’ prevent the availability of drugs?  Did Prohibition prevent the availability of alcohol?  Do you want the police to be armed with only a whistle?”
      Lucy: “What about other countries where guns are banned and crime is lower?”
      Charles: “Good point, but apples and oranges.  Other countries do not have our ethnic struggles.”
      Lucy: “Violent crime is a problem for all communities.”
      Charles: “We finally agree on something.”
      Lucy: “Fewer guns means less gun violence.”
      Charles: “You can ask me for my gun when you demonstrate that no one else has a gun or there is no need for a gun.”

       

      Comments Off on To Those Who Rally the Second Amendment to Protect an Individual’s Right to Gun Ownership
    • Buy paperback and kindle e-book now

       

      web image of cover - Copy

      front matter. . .

      Contents

      I. Introduction

      II. Medieval Institutions and Political Theory

      A. Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ
      B.  The Coronation Oath
      C.  Feudalism

      III. Normans, Angevins, and the Magna Carta

      A. The Norman Conquest and Henry I’s Charter
      B. Consilium and Henry II’s Assizes
      C. The Assizes of Clarendon and Novel Disseisin
      D. Richard I: Regency and Community

      IV. King John and the Magna Carta

      A. Chapter 12
      B. Chapter 39
      C. Chapter 61

      V. The Thirteenth Century after Runnymede

      A. Henry III and “Evil” Councilors
      B. The Baronial Period of Reform, 1258–1265
      C. Edward I and the Council in Parliament

      IV. The Fourteenth Century and the Rise of Participatory Government

      A. Edward II’s Coronation Oath and Baronial Reform
      B. The Ordinances and the Competition for “Right and Reason”
      C. The Ordainers, Rebellion, and the Statute of York
      D. The Commons’ Petition
      E. The King’s Council and Common Law
      F. Archbishop Stratford and Judicium Parium
      G. Richard II and Impeachment

      VII. Summary of the Medieval Period: The High Court of Parliament

      VIII. The Seventeenth Century and Reason of State

      IX. The American Constitution

      A. Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and Amendments to the Articles
      B. The United States Constitution and the Fifth Amendment

      X. The Judiciary and Due Process of Law: Substantive Due Process

      A. Due Process of Law, Law of the Land, and Constitutional Common Law
      B. Vested Property Interests and Due Process of Law
      C. The Fifth Amendment, Substantive Due Process of Law, and Judicial Enforcement of the Bill of Rights
      D. The Fourteenth Amendment and Substantive Due Process
      E. Modern Supreme Court Law

      XI. Conclusion

      HTML Index (pdf)

      A

      Adams, George Burton…………… 22, 97

      American Revolution … 172, 243, 265, 267

      1774 Declaration and Resolves.. 169

      American Independence …171, 191, 265, 267

      Antifederalists…………………… 181, 182

      arbitrary rule……….. 119, 230, 233, 250

      America lost appreciation for concept of   … 187, 216, 218

      America, use of ..169, 185, 187, 190, 197, 203, 216, 221, 239, 247, 250

      England, use of ……3, 41, 48–70, 78, 134, 137, 145, 155–66, 184, 187, 207, 231, 232, 240, 265

      judiciary creating arbitrary rule ..185, 245, 248

      Arlidge, Anthony………………………… 55

      Article V……. 268, see also Constitution

      Articles of Confederation ..17, 168, 172, 173, 179

      amendments to……………………. 175

      Ashley, Maurice…………………. 162, 163

      assizes… 26, 32–44, 46, 57, 58, 60, 63, 84, 183

      Assize of Clarendon…………… 36, 37

      presentment juries…………….. 36

      Assize of Novel Disseisin…..36, 39–41

      B

      Baker, J.H…. 22, 33, 37, 40, 42, 43, 77, 118

      Baldwin, James F. …….35, 73, 81, 85, 89, 114–22, 122

      Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 17 U.S. 235 (1819)  …. 203

      Baronial Period of Reform, 1258 .17, 43, 50, 70–80, 85, 93, 98, 99, 106, 112, 116, 127, 132, 138

      as a building block………………….. 79

      Committee of Twenty-Four……… 73

      community of bachelors………….. 79

      Council of Fifteen… 71–80, 101, 132

      Provisions of Oxford……………….. 74

      Bartlett, Robert………………… 32, 43, 75

      battle, trial by ….14, 22, 40, 41, 53, see also judicial proofs

      Berger, Raoul…………………………… 188

      Biancalana, Joseph…. 24–26, 33, 39, 41

      Bible …see also church; Christian empire

      Jesus Christ…………………………… 11

      Luke……………………………………… 9

      Matthew……………………………….. 5

      Paul…………………………………… 7, 8

      Romans…………………………………. 7

      Saint Peter……………………………… 5

      bicameralism……. see also Constitution

      Bidwell, William B……………………… 149

      Bill of Rights…………………………….. 164

      as guiding principle………… 233, 239

      English ……134, 152, 164, 165, 233, 268

      incorporation of…………….. 251, 252

      judicial activism……………………. 240

      state bills of rights… 171, 182, 183, 192, 233, 234, 237, 239, 265

      United States …182, 194, 230, 236, 251, 252, 256, 266

      unnecessary….…….234, 235, 238–40

      bills of attainder…… 192, 204, 213, 247

      Blackstone, Sir William…. 151, 185, 201

      Bonham’s Case ….see also Coke, Sir Edward

      Bracton…………………………. 11, 82, 150

      Bracton’s antinomy…………… 11, 13

      Bracton’s two theories of kingship 11

      natural law…………………………… 13

      Brand, Paul……………………… 25, 82, 87

      Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)                    257

      Brown, A.L………………………………… 36

      Burgh, Hubert de…………………. 70, 125

      Burns, J.H…………………………………… 6

      Burrell, Thomas H…..17, 21, 47, 168, 172, 174, 180, 241, 242, 245, 251–53, 257–59

      C

      Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) …211, 218

      Cam, Helen…….. 80, 100, 121, 130, 143

      Canning, J.P………………………….. 16, 46

      Carpenter, D.A……………. 55, 67, 68, 75

      Chapman, Nathan S……………. 186, 201

      Charles I…………………….. 153, 161, 162

      execution of………………………… 162

      Charles II…………………………………. 162

      charter of liberties……………………… 17

      Henry’s……………………………. 31, 52

      Stephen’s……………………………… 32

      charter privileges and immunities ….17, 55

      checks and balances ….see also Constitution

      Cheney, C.R………………………. 9, 17, 50

      Christian appeals………………………. 6, 7

      null and void…………………………… 6

      reason of sin……………………….. 6, 7

      Christian empire………………………….. 6

      consent…………………………………. 6

      papal release…… 65, 79, 90, 93, 139

      papal review…………………………… 7

      Saint Ambrose………………………… 7

      sword bearer………… 9, 44, 140, 166

      temporal and spiritual swords……. 9

      church ….see also Bible; Christian empire

      canon law……………….. 5–14, 42, 50

      corporate status……………………… 6

      Petrinacy……………………………. 6, 8

      reason ….7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 86, 94–96, 99, 104, 106, 109, 117, 128, 140, 149, 207, 268

      Coke’s artificial reason………. 149

      ratione alligatus………………….. 8

      Civil Rights Act of 1866………… 243, 252

      civil war………………………. 1, 19, 44, 50

      American……………………… 241, 249

      English ….1, 53, 65, 72, 79, 80, 147, 162

      Clarke, Maude Violet………….. 124, 143

      Coke, Sir Edward …..52, 53, 148, 155, 161, 185, 196, 205, 217, 231, 246, 248, 267

      advocacy rather than legal history ….148

      Cole, Maija J…………………………….. 149

      common consent ….35, 145, 147, 159, 160, 165, 168, 185, 233, 236, 243, 267, 268

      common counsel …3, 26, 29, 34, 35, 55–57, 62, 67, 72, 88, 100, 102, 109, 128, 137

      assent ..……34, 35, 85, 88, 101, 102, 106, 130, 143, 175, 176

      common law……………………………… 78

      American adoption of…….. 170, 191

      birth of………………………………… 42

      common law ineffective………… 122

      common-law procedure ….82, 116, 118, 126, 129, 130, see also Council sub conciliar process; assizes; due process of law; law of the land

      information or suggestion……… 118

      ius commune………………………… 42

      king’s ability to record crimes…. 106

      common utility ….7, 8, see also Christian empire; Petrinacy; kingship; judicial activism sub judicial prerogative

      common good….. 67, 68, 79, 87, 207

      common profit ….88, 91, 101, 102, 104, 123, 140, 268

      necessity ….8, 10, 18, 44, 57, 60, 86–88, 95, 96, 114, 137, 140, 151, 163, 169, 207, 268

      salus populi suprema lex ….see also commonwealth

      welfare …10, 18, 44, 57, 86, 96, 102, 114, 136, 163, 166, 241, 245, 268

      commonalty ……93, 106, 113, 139, see also High Court of Parliament

      commonwealth …166, 267, see also judicial activism sub courtwealth

      commune, London’s……………………. 46

      competition over right, reason, utility, and necessity …. 91, 95, 99, 102, 106, 109, 128, 158

      compurgation ….14, 15, 22, 38, 40, 61, see also judicial proofs

      congressional enforcement of the law…..174, 178

      Constitution

      Article V………………………. 264, 268

      as a black box…………. 204, 256, 264

      bicameralism………….. 111, 171, 180

      checks and balances… 179, 248, 266

      ex post facto…………………. 192, 213

      impeachment………………………. 180

      ratification………………………….. 182

      we the people………………. 264, 267

      constitutional common law….. 191–93, 196, 202, 214, 246, 267

      Constitutional Convention of 1787 …179, 188, 194, 234, 236, 266

      coronation charter……………. 17, 31, 32

      coronation oath ……. 14–18, 30, 31, 52, 82, 86–102, 104, 107, 128, 133, 134, 136, 139, see also kingship, theory of

      inalienable rights … 16, 233, 250, 251

      Costello, George A…………………….. 256

      Council ….22, 34, 35, 61, 62, 69, 71–80, 80–90, 97–113, 114–22, 127, 132, 138, 140, 143, 180

      chancellor ….45, 69, 72, 75, 77, 83, 115, 116, 121

      committee of hearers……………. 115

      conciliar process……………. 118, 120

      concilium baronum………………… 69

      Council’s judicial role……… 116, 145

      common law ineffective……. 122

      due process of law…………… 121

      Council’s legislative role………… 115

      false suggestions……………. 120, 121

      justiciar……………. 45, 69, 72, 75–77

      council-regency … see also kingship, sub regency

      Coutances, Archbishop Walter de ….45, 47, 63

      cruel and unusual punishment …..…see also Constitution

      curia regis….. 11, 13, 27, 28, 37, 43, 117

      D

      Darnel’s Case …153, see also forced loans

      Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819) ….203, 230

      Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 (1878)….. 211

      Davies, James Conway …..86, 91, 95, 96, 99, 101–05

      Davies, R.G……………. 75, 113, 114, 116

      De la Pole, Chancellor………………… 131

      impeachment………………………. 131

      Denton, J.H……………………………….. 75

      deposition …8, 16, 46, 108, 142, see also church; High Court of Parliament

      Edward II’s deposition…………… 107

      John’s almost………………………… 51

      Richard II’s deposition…………… 134

      Despensers……………………….. 105, 126

      diffidatio…………….. see also feudalism

      disseisin……………… see also feudalism

      Dodd, Gwilym………. 6, 81, 83, 111, 112

      Domesday Survey………………….. 30, 36

      Douglas, David C…. 2, 15, 21, 30, 31, 37

      Dred Scott…………………………. 229, 230

      Due Process Clause ….2, 183, 189, 191, 211, 212, 228, 230, 231, 245, 249–64

      substantive due process ….3, 230, 231, 233, 245, 252, 257

      due process of law ….2, 117, 118, 121, 126, 129, 145, 154, 155, 159, 182–264, 266, 267, see also Magna Carta; Chapter 39; Fifth Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment

      caught red-handed………….. 23, 129

      E

      Easterbrook, Frank H………….. 183, 186

      Edward I ….6, 19, 33, 80–91, 93, 96, 99, 101, 103, 107, 109, 114, 116, 119, 139, 144, 157, 231

      Council in Parliament……………… 85

      law giver………………………………. 85

      Edward II …..15, 75, 91–109, 114, 116, 128, 139, 141, 144

      coronation oath of…………………. 92

      Edward III …108, 113, 123, 124, 130, 142

      Ehrlich, Ludwik………………….. 8, 82, 93

      Elton, G.R………………………………… 122

      English Constitution ….1, 135, 141, 147, 165, 168, 179, 231, 265, 267

      Equal Protection Clause ….see also Fourteenth Amendment

      Evans, G.R…………………………………… 9

      evil councilors …91, 96, 101, 104, 140, 152, 232

      evolving standards of decency…….. 264

      ex post facto…….. see also Constitution

      excommunication …8, 9, 16, 44, 51–53, 65, 68, 71, 79, 83, 97, 124, 140, see also church

      John’s………………………………….. 51

      F

      Farrand, Max…………………….. 179, 180

      federalism………………….. 241, 256, 266

      feudalism………………………. 18, 46, 128

      commendation……………………… 21

      Conrad II…………………………. 23, 60

      consilium …21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 34, 69, 102, 137, see also common counsel

      diffidatio………………………… 25, 143

      diffidation …25, 26, 44, 54, 58, 62, 108, 140, 143

      disseisin…….. 24, 39, 48, 59, 61, 184

      distraint …24, 36, 38, 39, 41, 49, 62, 67, 97, 138, 140, 173, 178

      fealty………. 8, 15, 20, 23, 52, 57, 69

      feud…………………………………….. 19

      feudal contract……………………… 24

      homage …21, 23, 24, 32, 52, 66, 94, 95, 108

      judgment before………….. 22, 48, 54

      sine judicio et injuste………….. 39

      judicium parium.……………………. 57

      maintenance……………………. 20, 21

      oath-worthy………………………….. 20

      retainers………………………………. 19

      self-help………………………………. 26

      surety………………… 19, 20, 120, 121

      tenants in chief….. 21, 26, 28, 57, 58

      Field, Justice Stephen J… 245, 249, 251, 252, 254, 257, 258

      Fifteenth Amendment……………….. 241

      Fifth Amendment …2, 3, 179, 182, 227, 228, 254, 256, 264, 266

      plain-language construction of …183, 191, 217

      Five Knights Case ..see also forced loans

      forced loans……………….. 152, 153, 158

      Fourteenth Amendment …3, 241, 251, 252, 256–58, 266

      Equal Protection Clause …242, 252, 256, 257, 261

      substantive equal protection …253

      fundamental law …1, 97, see also arbitrary rule; Constitution; English Constitution

      binding the king…………………… 149

      Constitution………………………… 181

      judicial use of ….223, 224, 246, 254–56, 258, 259, 264, 268

      Magna Carta as……………….. 97, 187

      prerogative a part of…………….. 154

      Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) …264

      G

      Galbraith, V.H……………………………. 30

      Ganshof, F.L…………………………. 19, 21

      Gaveston, Piers or Peter …91, 93, 96, 102, 105, 126

      Gedicks, Frederick Mark…………….. 251

      Glorious Revolution …162, 163, 165, 168, 265, 268

      seven bishops case……………….. 163

      Goldsworthy, Jeffrey …117, 152, 155, 157, 158, 165, 202

      Great Councils …27, 34, 70, 72, 74, 75, 103, 123

      Greenaway, George W………. 15, 31, 37

      Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) …258, 260

      H

      habeas corpus …2, 152, 153, 158, 162, 236

      Haines, Charles Grove….. 205, 211, 251

      Hamilton, Alexander …185–90, 202, 204, 205

      Harding, Alan …14, 19, 22, 31, 36, 37, 40, 45, 76, 87, 110

      Harrison, John……… 204, 212, 230, 231

      Harriss, G.L. …….10, 72, 88–97, 99, 110–16, 124, 131–33, 144

      Haxey, Thomas………………….. 134, 163

      Haywood, Attorney General …193, 198, 232

      heightened scrutiny …see also judicial review

      Helmholz, R.H……………………………. 42

      Henry I……. 6, 17, 30, 31, 45, 52, 53, 55

      Henry II ….32, 35, 36, 39, 48, 49, 52, 57, 59, 63, 76, 77, 81, 183

      Henry III …66–71, 78–90, 109, 127, 139, 144

      majority………………………….. 67, 68

      minority……………………………….. 66

      Henry IV………………………………….. 134

      Herle, Charles…………………………… 158

      Hershey, Andrew H……… 72, 76, 77, 81

      High Court of Parliament …1, 84, 129, 132, 136, 139, 142, 144, 145, 265

      impeachment….. 128, 129, 131, 142

      parley………………………………….. 27

      parliamentary procedure……….. 133

      parliamentary sovereignty …2, 3, 29, 140, 145, 165, 166, 265

      partnership with community …141, 145

      Holdsworth, Sir William….27, 28, 33, 34, 37, 43, 49, 55, 77, 78, 82, 83, 112, 115, 122, 149, 152, 153, 162, 165

      Holmes v. Walton (New Jersey 1780) ….202

      Holmes, George……………………….. 129

      Holt, James C…………….. 44–64, 75, 128

      House of Commons…………………. 1, 75

      Commons …3, 42, 75, 100, 104–67, 181, 184, 185, 242, 265, 267

      impeachment …2, 99, 108, 130–33, 135, 139, 142, 152

      Hurnard, Naomi D………………………. 36

      Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) ….230, 245, 246, 248

      I

      indictment and presentment… 37, 38, 60, 109, 118, 121, 129, 130, 142, 154, 155, 183, 185, 190, 202, 204, 245, see also assizes; common-law procedure; due process of law; law of the land

      information…….. see also common law

      Innocent III, Pope…….. 9, 17, 50–54, 65

      inquest ….30, 39, 76, 80, 129, see also assize

      itinerant judges………………………….. 37

      J

      James I…………………………….. 150, 162

      James II……………………………. 162, 163

      Jefferson, Thomas…………………….. 237

      Jensen, Merrill……………. 172, 174, 175

      Johnson, Robert C…………………….. 149

      Jolliffe, John Edward Austin …7–117, 19, 25, 35, 64, 103, 108, 111, 143

      Judge, Igor………………………………… 55

      judicial activism ….245, 256, 258, 261, 264, see also arbitrary rule

      courtwealth………………………… 257

      judicial anarchy……………………. 211

      judicial hegemony………….. 263, 264

      judicial prerogative….. 205, 240, 245

      judicial state…………… 258, 267, 268

      reasonableness review …3, 219, 251, 254, 255, 261, 264, 268

      fairness…..204, 230, 245, 254, 257

      tyranny of the majority…… 240, 248

      judicial nominations………………….. 264

      judicial proofs ….38, see also battle, trial by; compurgation; ordeal; trial by jury; inquest; oath; judicium parium

      judicial review… 224, 227, 235, 248, 264

      beyond reasonable doubt ………202, 217, 227, 248, 249

      heightened scrutiny……….. 254, 255

      judicial restraint…………………… 216

      rational basis………………… 254, 255

      vested property interests………. 211

      judicium parium ….22, 38, 46, 60, 61, 109, 125–27, 129, 130, 142, 144, 181, see also feudalism; High Court of Parliament

      Judson, Margaret Atwood……… 148–63

      Jurow, Keith…………………………….. 120

      K

      Kantorowicz, Ernst………… 8, 11, 18, 99

      Keeler, Mary F………………………….. 149

      Keeney, Barnaby C…………………. 23, 61

      Kent, Chancellor James…… 192, 237–40

      Kenyon, J.P……… 148, 150, 158, 160–63

      Kern, Fritz……………………. 8, 10, 29, 33

      Killian, Johnny H……………………….. 256

      kin…………………………………………… 19

      King, P.D…………………………………… 10

      kingship, theory of ….9, 18, 82, see also vicar of God; church; common utility; arbitrary rule

      above the law….. 11, 12, 18, 86, 136

      divine right …117, 150, 165, 205, 265

      fountain of justice…………….. 10, 28

      minority ….22, 66, 69, 72, 73, 78–90, 108, 127, 130–32, 138, 141

      non obstante…………….. 68, 86, 164

      paradox……………………………….. 29

      per perceptum domini regis …59, 77, 153

      per voluntatem ….10, 48, 66, 184, 233, 268

      placing government in council …72, 73, 78, 131

      prerogative …..127, 128, 152, 154, 265

      proceedings against king or his ministers  …..57, 58, 81, 93, 97, 108, 128, 136, 153

      quo warranto……………… 68, 76, 80

      quod habet vigorem legis principi placuit ….10

      regency ….45, 66, 67, 69, 74, 78, 87, 93, 108, 124, 127, 131, 138

      separate capacities……. 95, 107, 150

      succession, conciliatory attitude …67, 87, 130, 134, 141

      two bodies…………………….. 8, 9, 11

      vicar of God ….9, 11, 33, 58, 165, see also church

      gratia Dei………………. 10, 16, 29

      voluntas princepis….. 29, 44, 57, 153

      knights and burgesses ….75, 76, 79, 103, 106, 107, 110–12, 123, 142

      L

      Lackland, King John ….1, 16, 25, 35, 36, 44–66, 69, 87, 90, 139, 144

      Lancaster, Henry of…………….. 106, 130

      Lancaster, Thomas of…… 104, 105, 129

      Langton, Stephen………………….. 51, 52

      Lapsley, Gaillard T…. 107, 125, 128, 129

      law of the land ….2, 42, 57, 59, 60, 69, 100, 101, 115–28, 154, 182–264,  see also due process of law; Magna Carta

      concept includes Parliament’s acts 155

      Leges Edwardi………………………. 52, 55

      Leges Henrici Primi……………. 31, 52, 55

      legibus solutus …..8, see kingship, theory of sub proceedings against king

      Liberty of Conscience or Declaration of Indulgence ….162

      Liebermann, Felix……………………….. 27

      Lindsay v. Commissioners, 2 S.C.L. 38 (Ct. App. 1796)…..209, 212–14

      Locke, John…… 166, 167, 207, 233, 267

      Longchamp, William…………. 45–47, 63

      Lords Appellant…………………. 132, 133

      Lovejoy, David S……………………….. 168

      Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) .259

      Luscombe, D.E……………….. 7, 9, 25, 50

      Lyon, Bryce …..20, 27, 28, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 46

      M

      Maddicott, J.R. 15, 27, 34, 55, 67, 72, 73, 79, 87, 90, 96, 98, 102, 105

      Madison, James…………… 173, 180, 235

      Magna Carta…. 2, 17, 24, 48–64, 124–26, 137, 139, 143, 154, 157, 161, 167, 169, 202, 203, 230, 231, 265, 266

      Articuli super Cartas ….71, 89, 98, 101, 119, 139

      Chapter 12………………… 55, 56, 137

      Chapter 39 ….2, 55, 57, 60, 117, 137, 183, 266

      Chapter 40……………………………. 77

      Chapter ….61 55, 61, 62, 65, 67, 73, 94, 97, 137, 138

      Confirmatio Cartarum of 1297 ….17, 88, 98, 268

      confirmation of ….55, 70, 71, 78, 88, 97, 99, 112, 123, 125, 134, 138, 140, 143, 144, 158

      taxes………… 67, 71, 88, 123, 138

      foundation for statute 138, 142, 143, 205

      Magna Carta as a bargaining chip ….71, 79, 138

      modify………… 71, 84, 100, 157, 231

      Runnymede……………………… 54, 65

      spirit of………………………………… 71

      Maitland, Frederic……….. 19, 22, 24, 83

      Malcolm, Joyce Lee…………….. 150, 158

      Markus, R.A………………………………. 14

      Marshall, John………………………….. 234

      Mason, George………………….. 181, 182

      Matthew……………………. see also Bible

      Mayo v. Wilson, 1 N.H. 53 (1817) 198, 201

      McConnell, Michael W….. 186, 201, 257

      McKean, Thomas………………………. 234

      McKechnie, William Sharpe… 49, 53–55

      McKisack, May… 110, 111, 123–25, 130

      medieval political theory……………….. 5

      Merciless Parliament ….130, 133,  see also Richard II

      Milsom, S.F.C………………………. 76, 117

      Morris, Colin …….6, 7, 9, 46, 50, 51, 85, 107

      Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. 272 (1856)……228, 229

      Musson, Anthony… 37, 81, 98, 112, 134

      Myers, A.R………………………….. 131–34

      N

      natural law 8, 10, 13, 14, 33, 93, 95, 136, 145, 233, see also Bracton

      Necessary and Proper Clause………. 181

      necessity, law of …..see also common utility; kingship sub separate capacities

      Nelson, Janet…………………………….. 17

      Nicol, D.M…………………………………. 10

      Norman Conquest …14, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 60, 66

      William the Conqueror……………. 30

      Normandy………………….. 45, 49, 50, 69

      Northwest Ordinance…………. 183, 236

      Notestein, Wallace……………………. 149

      O

      Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. — (2015) ….261

      ordeal ….14, 22, 38, 40, 61, see also judicial proofs

      Ordinances ….71, 89, 98, 99, 101, 104–06, 110, 119, 123, 125

      Baronial Declaration……………….. 95

      Ordainers ….80, 125, 127, 132, 140, 142, 268

      right and reason ….99, see also competition over right, reason, utility, and necessity

      original writs…….. 33, 77, 118, 121, 145

      register of writs……………………… 81

      Ormrod, Mark W…..37, 81, 98, 111, 112, 134

      Osgood, Herbert L…………………….. 168

      P

      Palmer, Robert C………………………… 25

      Paper Constitution……. 72, 73, 132, 138

      Parliament …..see also High Court of Parliament

      participatory government ……..2, 3, 29, 160, 165, 170, 179, 185, 197, 207, 232, 243, 252, 257, 264, 267, 268, see also High Court of Parliament; arbitrary rule; Constitution; fundamental law

      Paterson, Justice ….208, 211, see also vested property interests; judicial activism

      petitions. ….12, 62, 63, 70, 75–87, 98, 100, 103, 110–22, 125–44, 158, 160, 163, 229

      Commons’ petitions… 111, 112, 142

      grace ..10, 13, 16, 28, 48, 81, 82, 116, 117, 142, 160, 163

      hallmark of the English Constitution …110

      hearers………………………….. 83, 115

      Petition of Right …82, 143, 152, 156, 158, 160, 161, 163, 187, 231

      right to…………… 134, 163, 170, 233

      Plucknett, Theodore F.T. …..7–117, 31, 84, 100, 129, 130, 132, 133, 148, 153, 162, 165, 233

      police power……………………… 241, 245

      Pollard, A.F…………………………………. 8

      Poole, Austin Lane ….17, 22, 23, 31, 35, 37, 38, 43, 44–66

      positive law …..8, 10, 11, 13, 18, 32, 60, 86, 96

      Post, Gaines…………… 10, 11, 13, 18, 88

      Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678 (1888) ….248

      Powicke, Sir Maurice …..18, 59, 66–71, 76, 78–90, 121

      prerogative ….see also kingship, theory of

      Prestwich, Michael ….88, 89, 91, 98, 105, 110, 123, 125

      privacy, right to …3, 211, 255, 257, 258, 260

      Privy Seal……….. 89, 100, 101, 119, 145

      Procope, John………………………… 7, 10

      Provisions of Oxford ….101, see also Baronial Reform Period

      Q

      Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer ….107

      querelae……………….. 72, 76, 80, 81, 89

      R

      Rakove, Jack N…………………… 172, 174

      rational basis…. see also judicial review

      reason of sin ….see also Christian appeals; church

      reasonableness ….see also judicial activism; church sub reason

      recognition……………………… 37, 39–41

      regency…… see also kingship, theory of

      Relf, Frances Helen …149, 152–54, 158, 160, 161

      representative government …2, 3, 171, 233, 264

      republican principles …171, 196, 264, 265, 267

      Reynolds, Susan………….. 14, 22, 23, 33

      Richard I……… 34, 44, 45, 47, 48, 62, 73

      Richard II ….3, 99, 109, 128–35, 130, 133, 147, 163, 267

      Richardson, H.G. …14, 15, 18, 23, 25, 34, 49, 58, 63–66, 74, 76, 81, 85–87, 94, 104, 106, 114, 144

      Riggs, Robert E……… 155, 171, 185, 188

      Roberts, Chief Justice John…………. 261

      Robinson, I.S………………… 5, 6, 7, 9, 16

      Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ….259, 261

      Rogers, Alan……………….. 109, 132, 133

      Roman Catholics………………………. 162

      Rothwell, Harry ….2, 46, 52, 54, 56, 61, 65, 72, 88, 89, 92, 94, 98, 106, 184

      Rufus, William……………………………. 31

      rule of law …140, 144, 203, 204, 232, 242, 243, 267, 268, see also due process of law; arbitrary rule; judicial activism

      Russell, Conrad. …151, 153, 157, 158, 161, 162, 164

      S

      Saint Peter………. see also Bible; church

      salus populi suprema lex ….see also commonwealth

      same-sex marriage ….257, 261, 262, see also Obergefell v. Hodges

      Saul, Nigel……………………………….. 130

      Sayles, George O……… 7–117, 146, 160

      Scalia, Justice Antonin……………….. 262

      school desegregation…… 253, 257, 258

      Schwartz, Bernard…………………….. 202

      Schwoerer, Lois G. ….152, 153, 163–66, 233

      scutage…………………………. 56, 66, 137

      Semple, W.H……………………… 9, 17, 50

      Simpson, Hartley………………………. 149

      Star Chamber……………………. 122, 162

      State v. —, 2 N.C. (1 Hayw.) 50 (1794) …192, 232

      statute ….33, 60, 84, 86, 99, 100, 107, 110–22, 128, 143, 144, 154, 164, 231, see also High Court of Parliament

      42 Edward III………………… 156, 231

      annul….. 86, 114, 116, 128, 146, 163

      Edwardian statute………. 84, 85, 157

      equity and the rule of law… 117, 157

      importance of………… 113, 114, 205

      king in council enough for……….. 85

      modify law………………. 84, 157, 231

      ordinance…. 39, 84, 85, 99, 114, 115

      resolution of justice……….. 113, 140

      royal legislation……………………… 33

      suspending and dispensing …10, 152, 162–64, 224, 233, 265, 268

      Statute of 1341…….. 126, 127, 129, 132

      Statute of York………… 15, 93, 102, 106

      Stenton, Doris M………………. 22, 25, 41

      Storing, Herbert J….. 181, 182, 234, 239

      Stratford, Archbishop John 99, 122, 123–25, 128

      Stubbs, William……………………. 15, 246

      Supremacy Clause…………………….. 266

      suspending and dispensing ….see also statute; common utility; kingship sub prerogative

      Sutherland, Donald W…………………. 80

      T

      Tait, James………………………………… 47

      Taney, Chief Justice Roger B. …..229, 230, 245, 253

      taxation without representation ….2, 152, 265, see also arbitrary rule; Constitution

      Thirteenth Amendment………. 241, 253

      Thomas, Kenneth R…………………… 256

      Thompson, Faith ….68, 71, 86, 97, 100, 101, 105, 114, 117, 120, 121, 134, 154

      Tierney, Brian……………… 6, 7, 9, 32, 50

      Tite, Colin G.C……………………. 129, 152

      Tout, T.F… 74, 86, 89, 98, 101, 105, 107, 108, 129, 130

      Treharne, R.F………………………… 71–80

      Trevett v. Weeden (Rhode Island 1786) ….202

      trial by jury ……3, 37, 38, 185, 191–93, 198, 202, 204, 213, 229, 236, 239, see also judicial proofs

      petit jury………………………………. 38

      Trustees of the University of North Carolina v. Foy, 5 N.C. 57 (1805)….214, 216, 217

      Tudors…………….. 3, 122, 135, 145, 148

      Turner, Ralph V. ….11, 35, 43, 44, 46, 48, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 63, 67–70, 78, 86

      tyranny ….49, 134, 158, 230, 239, 266–68, see also arbitrary rule; High Court of Parliament; judicial activism

      U

      Ullmann, Walter ….5–16, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 60

      ascending theory…………………… 29

      descending theory…………………. 29

      V

      Valente, Claire…………………… 108, 109

      Van Caenegem, R.C…. 26, 31, 33, 38–41

      Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304 (1795) ….211, see also vested property interests

      vested property interests ….48, 68, 151, 177, 193, 206, 212, 214, 217, 218, 221–23

      A-to-B laws…………………………. 211

      due process of law……………….. 217

      law of the land………………. 212, 214

      natural law defense of……. 207, 208

      origin of judicial activism…. 206, 211

      representative consent ….151, 206, 210, 211

      takings………………….. 184, 207, 217

      jury required…………………… 208

      just compensation …….183, 191, 208, 212, 213

      necessity………………………… 207

      vicar of God ….see also kingship theory; Bible; Christian empire sub two swords

      vox curiae, vox Dei.……………………. 268

      vox populi, vox Dei …109, see also commonwealth

      W

      Walter, Archbishop Hubert…………… 50

      Warren, Chief Justice Earl …258, 259, 261, see also judicial activism

      Watt, J.A……………………………. 6, 9, 16

      we the people….. see also Constitution

      Webster, Daniel …203–05, 230, 245, 247, 253

      western constitutionalism……. 205, 207

      White, Stephen D…………………. 148–63

      Wilkinson, Bertie …..7–117, 102, 107, 125–27, 130, 134, 135, 140, 141, 143, 145, 211

      Williams, Ryan C. …171, 183, 185, 198, 205, 214, 242

      Witan………………………………………. 27

      written or unwritten constitutions ….33, 35, 60, 62, 84, 203, 212, 217, 220, 224, 239, 248, 258, 267, 268

      Wynehamer v. People, 13 N.Y. 378 (1856)…..217–19, 221, 223, 248

      Z

      Zylstra v. Corp. of Charleston, 1 S.C.L. 382 (Ct. Com. Pl. 1794) ….. 214

       

      Comments Off on Magna Carta and Due Process of Law: The Road to American Judicial Activism
    • In 2015, the English-speaking world will celebrate the Magna Carta’s 800th anniversary.

      The Magna Carta is a pillar of the English Constitution. In 1215, a group of powerful barons secured a great charter of liberties from King John. The barons believed that King John ruled arbitrarily and violated the customs and laws of the realm. A long-brewing struggle between the barons and the king erupted. The result, under the threat of civil war, was a promise of liberties from John to the barons.

      The Magna Carta’s anniversary, as anniversaries have in the past, will likely produce an abundance of literature.

      From the English side, we will read of the history of Parliament and the House of Commons: famous English institutions such as taxation only with representation, parliamentary privileges, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act, and the English Bill of Rights. The English will celebrate the growth of Parliament’s representative government, which grew alongside the constriction of monarchical government.

      From the American side, we will see similar academic productions noting the history of our Constitution and tracing its connection to the English Constitution and the Magna Carta. Without much difficulty, American constitutionalism will trace “due process” back to Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta. Chapter 39:

      “No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

      The two cornerstones of Chapter 39 and the era of the Magna Carta are (1) the concept of judgment and process before enforcement (2) common counsel or assent, e.g., participation in extraordinary taxation and government.

      But the conversation in America will quickly turn away from participatory government to the American notion of “Due Process of Law.”

      In America, “due process of law” means differnt things to different people. Most attribute a body of procedure to the phrase. For them, “due process of law” in the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment entitles citizens to judicial customs and processes like fair notice, a hearing, and perhaps trial by jury.

      Others go much further and champion substantive “due process of law.” For substantive-due-process advocates, the Constitution’s use of “due process of law” incorporates not only a body of judicial processes but also generic concepts of reasonableness and social justice. Public actions or even enacted law that violates particular notions of right and wrong, privacy, happiness, dignity, equality, or some other social principle is a violation of the Constitution’s “Due Process of law.” The problem with this subjective constitutional standard is self-evident.

      Comments Off on 2015, The 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta
    • “For the truly great thing about the Magna Carta has been its ability to mean all things to all men—to project itself into the dreams and necessities of ages which the men of 1215 could not even dimly foresee.”  Bernard Schwartz.

      The same thing can be said of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.  To a lesser degree, the quote fits the advocacy via the Privileges and/or Immunities Clauses.  In fact, the same thing can be said about the Judiciary’s living, breathing Constitution and the incorporated Bill of Rights!

      Comments Off on The Myth of the Magna Carta, “all things to all men”